PoliticsBritain First leader Paul Golding convicted under terrorism law [Guardian]

submitted by APDSmithKiA Old Guard from archive.is

all 3 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]APDSmithKiA Old Guard[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

To clarify, I'm not particularly enamoured of Britain First, but it's a good illustration of the state of the UK's terror laws - and their usage by the Police.

To summarise, Golding, on a return from Russia ("Muh Russia!"):

  • Was stopped by the Police under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act;
  • Schedule 7 does not have a "reasonable suspicion" standard - as such the Police aren't required to demonstrate any reason at all for stopping you, not even "I don't like your face";
  • Was required under the terms of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act to supply PINs for mobile devices;
  • On failure to do so, was charged under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act.

So, just be aware that, just as US Customs, UK airports are a "fuck you" zone when it comes to civil liberties.

[–]GizortnikKiA Old Guard 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is exactly the problem with these terror laws. It's a massive suspension of some real basic freedoms. Particularly when it comes to the suspension of any reasonable suspicion standard.

[–]APDSmithKiA Old Guard[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. Not just because of the inherent issue, which is substantial, but also because the Police are never held to account for the action of stopping someone under Schedule 7 - they can't be, the Schedule means they're never required to even say why they stopped someone. It's a license to do whatever the hell they want.